Morris v. Trump

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided February 9, 2022·No. 1:21-cv-04445·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KEITH S. MORRIS, Plaintiff, 21-CV-04445 (LTS) -against- ORDER PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff brought this complaint pro se, asserting claims in connection with (1) the failure of the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs in 2017, to renew his license to act as a towing operator based on his criminal history; and (2) problems with his unemployment insurance and social security benefits. By order dated June 1, 2021, the Court held, among other things, that many of the federal defendants were immune from suit; that Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 appeared to be time-barred; and that, if Plaintiff was seeking review of the denial of social security benefits, he had not alleged facts showing that he had exhausted his administrative remedies. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint within 60 days. On August 3, 2021, the Court dismissed the action for Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint and entered judgment. (ECF 7-8.) On August 4, 2021, after the order of dismissal and judgment were entered, the Clerk docketed Plaintiff’s letter, in which he asks for more time to file an amended complaint. (ECF 9.) Plaintiff also filed a notice of appeal. (ECF 10.) The Court liberally construes Plaintiff’s letter (ECF 9) as a motion to alter or amend the judgment, under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006). For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion and directs the Clerk of Court to vacate the order of dismissal and judgment and reopen this matter. The Court directs Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, within 60 days of the date of this order, as set forth in the June 1, 2021, order to amend. DISCUSSION A. Motion for Reconsideration Under Rule 59(e) The standards governing motions under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3 are the same.

R.F.M.A.S., Inc. v. Mimi So, 640 F. Supp. 2d 506, 509 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). The movant must demonstrate that the Court overlooked “controlling law or factual matters” that had been previously put before it. Id. at 509 (discussion in the context of both Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)); see Padilla v. Maersk Line, Ltd., 636 F. Supp. 2d 256, 258-59 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “Such motions must be narrowly construed and strictly applied in order to discourage litigants from making repetitive arguments on issues that have been thoroughly considered by the court.” Range Road Music, Inc. v. Music Sales Corp., 90 F. Supp. 2d 390, 391-92 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). If a party files a timely motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

or files a Rule 60 motion within 28 days of the entry date of the challenged judgment, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (vi), a notice of appeal does not become “effective” until after the district court rules on that motion, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i). Here, Plaintiff’s submission is timely as a Rule 59(e) motion, and the Court can therefore rule on the motion notwithstanding Plaintiff’s subsequent filing of a notice of appeal. In Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion, he sought more time to file his amended complaint because of his responsibilities caring for his elderly mother and his lack of legal expertise. (ECF 9.) Although Plaintiff’s letter was not docketed until after the action was closed, the Court received it while this matter was still pending. Moreover, Plaintiff’s application shows valid reasons why he needed more time to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion under Rule 59(e) is granted, and the Court will vacate the order of dismissal and judgment and allow Plaintiff to amend his complaint. B. Leave to Amend As set forth in the June 2021 order to amend, Plaintiff cannot bring a claim for damages

against Social Security Commissioner Saul or Administrative Law Judge Fuller, but the Social Security Act does permit claimants to seek review in federal court of a “final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which [the claimant] was party.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). To exhaust the administrative review process for a claim for social security benefits, a plaintiff must: (1) receive an initial determination concerning the computation of benefits; (2) seek reconsideration; (3) request a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ); and (4) request that the Appeals Council review the ALJ’s decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); 20 C.F.R. § 404.900(a)(1)-(5). Once the Appeals Council issues a final decision, the plaintiff may seek review of the decision in a federal district court.1 The Court attaches to this order an amended complaint form for social security cases, for Plaintiff to use if he seeks review of a final

decision of the Social Security Administration. If Plaintiff seeks to assert a claim against an individual defendant, he must plead facts showing what each individual personally did or failed to do that violated his rights. If Plaintiff includes in his amended complaint his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arising from the 2017 denial of his towing license, he must also plead facts showing why the three-year limitations

1 “[I]f . . . the [Appeals] Council denies the request for review, the ALJ’s opinion becomes the final decision.” Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 107 (2000). “If a claimant fails to request review from the Council, there is no final decision and, as a result, no judicial review in most cases.” Id. period did not bar his claim when he filed his original complaint on May 14, 2021, including any facts that would establish equitable tolling. A general amended complaint form is also attached to this order. Plaintiff’s amended complaint will completely replace, not supplement, his original complaint.

Plaintiff may wish to contact the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG) for assistance in drafting an amended complaint. An informational flyer provided by NYLAG is attached to this order. CONCLUSION The Court liberally construes Plaintiff’s letter (ECF 9) as a motion to alter or amend the judgment, under Rule 59 (e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and grants the motion. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to vacate the order of dismissal and judgment (ECF 7-8) and reopen this matter.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Morris v. Trump, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Morris v. Trump (Morris v. Trump) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Sims v. Apfel
530 U.S. 103 (Supreme Court, 2000)
R.F.M.A.S., Inc. v. Mimi So
640 F. Supp. 2d 506 (S.D. New York, 2009)
Range Road Music, Inc. v. Music Sales Corp.
90 F. Supp. 2d 390 (S.D. New York, 2000)
Padilla v. Maersk Line, Ltd.
636 F. Supp. 2d 256 (S.D. New York, 2009)